Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Martin Pettit and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
BRITAIN FOR THE BRITISH
BY
_ROBERT BLATCHFORD_
EDITOR OF THE CLARION
[Illustration: Logo]
LONDON
CLARION PRESS, 72 FLEET STREET, E. C.
CHICAGO
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
56 FIFTH AVENUE
Copyright, 1902,
BY CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY.
Printed in the United States.
DEDICATED TO A. M. THOMPSON
AND THE CLARION FELLOWSHIP
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
THE TITLE, PURPOSE, AND METHOD OF THIS BOOK 1
FOREWORDS 6
I. THE UNEQUAL DIVISION OF WEALTH 10
II. WHAT IS WEALTH? WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? WHO CREATES IT? 26
III. HOW THE FEW GET RICH AND KEEP THE MANY POOR 33
IV. THE BRAIN-WORKER, OR INVENTOR 45
V. THE LANDLORD'S RIGHTS AND THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS 51
VI. LUXURY AND THE GREAT USEFUL EMPLOYMENT FRAUD 63
VII. WHAT SOCIALISM IS NOT 74
VIII. WHAT SOCIALISM IS 82
IX. COMPETITION _v._ CO-OPERATION 90
X. FOREIGN TRADE AND FOREIGN FOOD 97
XI. HOW TO KEEP FOREIGN TRADE 102
XII. CAN BRITAIN FEED HERSELF? 110
XIII. THE SUCCESSFUL MAN 119
XIV. TEMPERANCE AND THRIFT 127
XV. THE SURPLUS LABOUR MISTAKE 135
XVI. IS SOCIALISM POSSIBLE, AND WILL IT PAY? 141
XVII. THE NEED FOR A LABOUR PARTY 148
XVIII. WHY THE OLD PARTIES WILL NOT DO 156
XIX. TO-DAY'S WORK 166
WHAT TO READ 174
THE TITLE OF THIS BOOK
The motto of this book is expressed in its title: BRITAIN FOR THE
BRITISH.
At present Britain does not belong to the British: it belongs to a few
of the British, who employ the bulk of the population as servants or as
workers.
It is because Britain does not belong to the British that a few are very
rich and the many are very poor.
It is because Britain does not belong to the British that we find
amongst the _owning_ class a state of useless luxury and pernicious
idleness, and amongst the _working_ classes a state of drudging toil, of
wearing poverty and anxious care.
This state of affairs is contrary to Christianity, is contrary to
justice, and contrary to reason. It is bad for the rich, it is bad for
the poor; it is against the best interests of the British nation and the
human race.
The remedy for this evil state of things--the _only_ remedy yet
suggested--is _Socialism_. And _Socialism_ is broadly expressed in the
title and motto of this book: BRITAIN FOR THE BRITISH.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK
The purpose of this book is to convert the reader to _Socialism_: to
convince him that the present system--political, industrial, and
social--is bad; to explain to him why it is bad, and to prove to him
that Socialism is the only true remedy.
FOR WHOM THIS BOOK IS INTENDED
This book is intended for any person who does not understand, or has, so
far, refused to accept the principles of _Socialism_.
But it is especially addressed, as my previous book, _Merrie England_,
was addressed, to JOHN SMITH, a typical British working man, not yet
converted to _Socialism_.
I hope this book will be read by every opponent of _Socialism_; and I
hope it will be read by all those good folks who, though not yet
_Socialists_, are anxious to help their fellow-creatures, to do some
good in their own day and generation, and to leave the world a little
better than they found it.
I hope that all lovers of justice and of truth will read this book, and
that many of them will be thereby led to a fuller study of _Socialism_.
To the Tory and the Radical; to the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, and
the Nonconformist; to the workman and the employer; to the scholar and
the peer; to the labourer's wife, the housemaid, and the duchess; to the
advocates of Temperance and of Co-operation; to the Trade Unionist and
the non-Unionist; to the potman, the bishop, and the brewer; to the
artist and the merchant; to the poet and the navvy; to the Idealist and
the Materialist; to the poor clerk, the rich financier, the great
scientist, and the little child, I commend the following beautiful
prayer from the Litany of the Church of England:--
That it may please thee to bring into the way of truth _all_ such as
have erred, and are deceived.
That it may please thee to strengthen such as do stand; and to
comfort and help the weak-hearted; and to raise up them that fall;
and finally to beat down Satan under our feet.
That it may please thee to succour, help, and comfort _all_ that are
in danger, necessity, and tribulation.
That it may please thee to preserve _all_ that travel by land or by
water, _all_ women labouring of child, _all_ sick persons, and young
children; and to shew thy pity upon _all_ prisoners and captives.
That it may please thee to defend, and provide for, the fatherless
children, and widows, and _all_ that are desolate and oppressed.
That it may please thee to have mercy upon _all_ men.
That it may please thee to forgive our enemies, persecutors, and
slanderers, and to turn their hearts.
That it may please thee to give and preserve to our use the kindly
fruits of the earth, so as in due time we may enjoy them.
_We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord._
I have italicised the word "all" in that prayer to emphasise the fact
that mercy, succour, comfort, and pardon are here asked for _all_, and
not for a few.
I now ask the reader of this book, with those words of broad charity and
sweet kindliness still fresh in mind, to remember the unmerited
miseries, the ill-requited labour, the gnawing penury, and the loveless
and unhonoured lives to which an evil system dooms millions of British
men and women. I ask the reader to discover for himself how much pity we
bestow upon our "prisoners and captives," how much provision we make for
the "fatherless children and widows," what nature and amount of
"succour, help, and comfort" we vouchsafe to "all who are in danger,
necessity, and tribulation." I ask him to consider, with regard to those
"kindly fruits of the earth," who produces, and who enjoys them; and I
beg him next to proceed in a judicial spirit, by means of candour and
right reason, to examine fairly and weigh justly the means proposed by
Socialists for abolishing poverty and oppression, and for conferring
prosperity, knowledge, and freedom upon _all_ men.
BRITAIN FOR THE BRITISH: that is our motto. We ask for a fair and open
trial. We solicit an impartial hearing of the case for _Socialism_.
Listen patiently to our statements; consider our arguments; accord to us
a fair field and no favour; and may the truth prevail.
THE METHOD OF THIS BOOK
As to the method of this book, I shall begin by calling attention to
some of the evils of the present industrial, social, and political
system.
I shall next try to show the sources of those evils, the causes from
which they arise.
I shall go on to explain what _Socialism_ is, and what _Socialism_ is
not.
I shall answer the principal objections commonly urged against
_Socialism_.
And I shall, in conclusion, point out the chief ways in which I think
the reader of this book may help the cause of _Socialism_ if he believes
that cause to be just and wise.
FOREWORDS
Years ago, before _Socialism_ had gained a footing in this country, some
of us democrats used often to wonder how any working man could be a
Tory.
To-day we Socialists are still more puzzled by the fact that the
majority of our working men are not Socialists.
How is it that middle class and even wealthy people often accept
_Socialism_ more readily than do the workers?
Perhaps it is because the men and women of the middle and upper classes
are more in the habit of reading and thinking for themselves, whereas
the workers take most of their opinions at second-hand from priests,
parsons, journalists, employers, and members of Parliament, whose little
knowledge is a dangerous thing, and whose interests lie in bolstering up
class privilege by darkening counsel with a multitude of words.
I have been engaged for more than a dozen years in studying political
economy and _Socialism_, and in trying, as a Socialist, pressman, and
author, to explain _Socialism_ and to confute the arguments and answer
the objections of non-Socialists, and I say, without any hesitation,
that I have never yet come across a single argument against practical
_Socialism_ that will hold water.
I do not believe that any person of fair intelligence and education, who
will take the trouble to study _Socialism_ fairly and thoroughly, will
be able to avoid the conclusion that _Socialism_ is just and wise.
I defy any man, of any nation, how learned, eminent, and intellectual
soever, to shake the case for practical _Socialism_, or to refute the
reasoning contained in this book.
And now I will address myself to Mr. John Smith, a typical British
workman, not yet converted to _Socialism_.
Dear Mr. Smith, I assume that you are opposed to _Socialism_, and I
assume that you would say that you are opposed to it for one or more of
the following reasons:--
1. Because you think _Socialism_ is unjust.
2. Because you think _Socialism_ is unpractical.
3. Because you think that to establish _Socialism_ is not possible.
But I suspect that the real reason for your opposition to _Socialism_ is
simply that you do not understand it.
The reasons you generally give for opposing _Socialism_ are reasons
suggested to you by pressmen or politicians who know very little about
it, or are interested in its rejection.
I am strongly inclined to believe that the _Socialism_ to which you are
opposed is not _Socialism_ at all, but only a bogey erected by the
enemies of _Socialism_ to scare you away from the genuine _Socialism_,
which it would be so much to your advantage to discover.
Now you would not take your opinions of Trade Unionism from
non-Unionists, and why, then, should you take your opinions of
_Socialism_ from non-Socialists?
If you will be good enough to read this book you will find out what
_Socialism_ really is, and what it is not. If after reading this book
you remain opposed to _Socialism_, I must leave it for some Socialist
more able than I to convert you.
When it pleases those who call themselves your "betters" to flatter you,
Mr. Smith (which happens oftener at election times than during strikes
or lock-outs), you hear that you are a "shrewd, hard-headed, practical
man." I hope that is true, whether your "betters" believe it or not.
I am a practical man myself, and shall offer you in this book nothing
but hard fact and cold reason.
I assume, Mr. Smith, that you, as a hard-headed, practical man, would
rather be well off than badly off, and that with regard to your own
earnings you would rather be paid twenty shillings in the pound than
five shillings or even nineteen shillings and elevenpence in the pound.
And I assume that as a family man you would rather live in a
comfortable and healthy house than in an uncomfortable and unhealthy
house; that you would be glad if you could buy beef, bread, gas, coal,
water, tea, sugar, clothes, boots, and furniture for less money than you
now pay for them; and that you would think it a good thing, and not a
bad thing, if your wife had less work and more leisure, fewer worries
and more nice dresses, and if your children had more sports, and better
health, and better education.
And I assume that you would like to pay lower rents, even if some rich
landlord had to keep fewer race-horses.
And I assume that as a humane man you would prefer that other men and
women and their children should not suffer if their sufferings could be
prevented.
If, then, I assure you that you are paying too much and are being paid
too little, and that many other Britons, especially weak women and young
children, are enduring much preventible misery; and if I assert,
further, that I know of a means whereby you might secure more ease and
comfort, and they might secure more justice, you will, surely, as a kind
and sensible man, consent to listen to the arguments and statements I
propose to place before you.
Suppose a stranger came to tell you where you could get a better house
at a lower rent, and suppose your present landlord assured you that the
man who offered the information was a fool or a rogue, would you take
the landlord's word without investigation? Would it not be more
practical and hard-headed to hear first what the bringer of such good
news had to tell?
Well, the Socialist brings you better news than that of a lower rent.
Will you not hear him? Will you turn your back on him for no better
reason than because he is denounced as a fraud by the rich men whose
wealth depends upon the continuation of the present system?
Your "betters" tell you that you always display a wise distrust of new
ideas. But to reject an idea because it is new is not a proof of
shrewdness and good sense; it is a sign of bigotry and ignorance. Trade
Unionism was new not so long ago, and was denounced, and is still
denounced, by the very same persons who now denounce _Socialism_. If
you find a newspaper or an employer to be wrong when he denounces Trade
Unionism, which you do understand, why should you assume that the same
authority is right in denouncing _Socialism_, which you do not
understand? You know that in attacking Trade Unionism the employer and
the pressman are speaking in their own interest and against yours; why,
then, should you be ready to believe that in counselling you against
_Socialism_ the same men are speaking in your interest and not in their
own?
I ask you, as a practical man, to forget both the Socialist and the
non-Socialist, and to consider the case for and against _Socialism_ on
its merits. As I said in _Merrie England_--
Forget that you are a joiner or a spinner, a Catholic or a
Freethinker, a Liberal or a Tory, a moderate drinker or a
teetotaler, and consider the problem as a _man_.
If you had to do a problem in arithmetic, or if you were cast adrift
in an open boat at sea, you would not set to work as a Wesleyan, or
a Liberal Unionist; but you would tackle the sum by the rules of
arithmetic, and would row the boat by the strength of your own
manhood, and keep a lookout for passing ships under _any_ flag. I
ask you, then, Mr. Smith, to hear what I have to say, and to decide
by your own judgment whether I am right or wrong.
I was once opposed to _Socialism_ myself; but it was before I understood
it.
When you understand it you will, I feel sure, agree with me that it is
perfectly logical, and just, and practical; and you will, I hope,
yourself become a _Socialist_, and will help to abolish poverty and
wrong by securing BRITAIN FOR THE BRITISH.
CHAPTER I
THE UNEQUAL DIVISION OF WEALTH
_Section A: the Rich_
Non-socialists say that self-interest is the strongest motive in human
nature.
Let us take them at their word.
Self-interest being the universal ruling motive, it behoves you, Mr.
Smith, to do the best you can for yourself and family.
Self-interest being the universal ruling motive, it is evident that the
rich man will look out for his own advantage, and not for yours.
Therefore as a selfish man, alive to your own interests, it is clear
that you will not trust the rich man, nor believe in the unselfishness
of his motives.
As a selfish man you will look out first for yourself. If you can get
more wages for the work you do, if you can get the same pay for fewer
hours and lighter work, self-interest tells you that you would be a fool
to go on as you are. If you can get cheaper houses, cheaper clothes,
food, travelling, and amusement than you now get, self-interest tells
you that you would be a fool to go on paying present prices.
Your landlord, your employer, your tradesman will not take less work or
money from you if he can get more.
Self-interest counsels you not to pay a high price if you can get what
you want at a lower price.
Your employer will not employ you unless you are useful to him, nor will
he employ you if he can get another man as useful to him as you at a
lower wage.
Such persons as landlords, capitalists, employers, and contractors will
tell you that they are useful, and even necessary, to the working class,
of which class you are one.
Self-interest will counsel you, firstly, that if these persons are
really useful or necessary to you, it is to your interest to secure
their services at the lowest possible price; and, secondly, that if you
can replace them by other persons more useful or less costly, you will
be justified in dispensing with their services.
Now, the Socialist claims that it is cheaper and better for the people
to manage their own affairs than to pay landlords, capitalists,
employers, and contractors to manage their affairs for them.
That is to say, that as it is cheaper and better for a city to make its
own gas, or to provide its own water, or to lay its own roads, so it
would be cheaper and better for the nation to own its own land, its own
mines, its own railways, houses, factories, ships, and workshops, and to
manage them as the corporation tramways, gasworks, and waterworks are
now owned and managed.
Your "betters," Mr. Smith, will tell you that you might be worse off
than you are now. That is not the question. The question is, Might you
be better off than you are now?
They will tell you that the working man is better off now than he was a
hundred years ago. That is not the question. The question is, Are the
workers as well off now as they ought to be and might be?
They will tell you that the British workers are better off than the
workers of any other nation. That is not the question. The question is,
Are the British workers as well off as they ought to be and might be?
They will tell you that Socialists are discontented agitators, and that
they exaggerate the evils of the present time. That is not the question.
The question is, Do evils exist at all to-day, and if so, is no remedy
available?
Your "betters" have admitted, and do admit, as I will show you
presently, that evils do exist; but they have no remedy to propose.
The Socialist tells you that your "betters" are deceived or are
deceiving you, and that _Socialism_ is a remedy, and the only one
possible.
Self-interest will counsel you to secure the best conditions you can
for yourself, and will warn you not to expect unselfish service from
selfish men.
Ask yourself, then, whether, since self-interest is the universal
motive, it would not be wise for you to make some inquiry as to whether
the persons intrusted by you with the management of your affairs are
managing your affairs to your advantage or to their own.
As a selfish man, is it sensible to elect selfish men, or to accept
selfish men, to govern you, to make your laws, to manage your business,
and to affix your taxes, prices, and wages?
The mild Hindoo has a proverb which you might well remember in this
connection. It is this--
The wise man is united in this life with that with which it is
proper he should be united. I am bread; thou art the eater: how can
harmony exist between us?
Appealing, then, entirely to your self-interest, I ask you to consider
whether the workers of Britain to-day are making the best bargain
possible with the other classes of society. Do the workers receive their
full due? Do evils exist in this country to-day? and if so, is there a
remedy? and if there is a remedy, what is it?
The first charge brought by Socialists against the present system is the
charge of the unjust distribution of wealth.
The rich obtain wealth beyond their need, and beyond their deserving;
the workers are, for the most part, condemned to lead laborious,
anxious, and penurious lives. Nearly all the wealth of the nation is
produced by the workers; most of it is consumed by the rich, who
squander it in useless or harmful luxury, leaving the majority of those
who produced it, not enough for human comfort, decency, and health.
If you wish for a plain and clear statement of the unequal distribution
of wealth in this country, get Fabian Tract No. 5, price one penny, and
study it well.
According to that tract, the total value of the wealth produced in this
country is L1,700,000,000. Of this total L275,000,000 is paid in rent,
L340,000,000 is paid in interest, L435,000,000 is paid in profits and
salaries. That makes a total of L1,050,000,000 in rent, interest,
profits, and salaries, nearly the whole of which goes to about 5,000,000
of people comprising the middle and upper classes.
The balance of L650,000,000 is paid in wages to the remaining 35,000,000
of people comprising the working classes. Roughly, then, two-thirds of
the national wealth goes to 5,000,000 of persons, quite half of whom are
idle, and one-third is _shared_ by seven times as many people, nearly
half of whom are workers.
These figures have been before the public for many years, and so far as
I know have never been questioned.
There are, say the Fabian tracts, more than 2,000,000 of men, women, and
children living without any kind of occupation: that is, they live
without working.
Ten-elevenths of all the land in the British Islands belong to 176,520
persons. The rest of the 40,000,000 own the other eleventh. Or, dividing
Britain into eleven parts, you may say that one two-hundredth part of
the population owns ten-elevenths of Britain, while the other one
hundred and ninety-nine two-hundredths of the population own
one-eleventh of Britain. That is as though a cake were divided amongst
200 persons by giving to one person ten slices, and dividing one slice
amongst 199 persons. I told you just now that Britain does not belong to
the British, but only to a few of the British.
In Fabian Tract No. 7 I read--
One-half of the _wealth_ of the kingdom is held by persons who leave
at death at least L20,000, exclusive of land and houses. _These
persons form a class somewhat over 25,000 in number._
Half the wealth of Britain, then, is held by one fifteen-hundredth part
of the population. It is as if a cake were cut in half, one half being
given to one man and the other half being divided amongst 1499 men.
How much cake does a working mechanic get?
In 1898 the estates of seven persons were proved at over L45,000,000.
That is to say, those seven left L45,000,000 when they died.
Putting a workman's wages at L75 a year, and his working life at twenty
years, it would take 30,000 workmen all their lives to _earn_ (not to
_save_) the money left by those seven rich men.
Many rich men have incomes of L150,000 a year. The skilled worker draws
about L75 a year in wages.
Therefore one man with L150,000 a year gets more than 2000 skilled
workmen, and the workmen have to do more than 600,000 days' work for
their wages, while the rich man does _nothing_.
One of our richest dukes gets as much money in one year for doing
nothing, as a skilled workman would get for 14,000 years of hard and
useful work.
A landowner is a millionaire. He has L1,000,000. It would take an
agricultural labourer, at 10s. a week wages, nearly 40,000 years to earn
L1,000,000.
I need not burden you with figures. Look about you and you will see
evidences of wealth on every side. Go through the suburbs of London, or
any large town, and notice the large districts composed of villas and
mansions, at rentals of from L100 to L1000 a year. Go through the
streets of a big city, and observe the miles of great shops stored with
flaming jewels, costly gold and silver plate, rich furs, silks,
pictures, velvets, furniture, and upholsteries. Who buys all these
expensive luxuries? They are not for you, nor for your wife, nor for
your children.
You do not live in a L200 flat. Your floor is not covered with a L50
Persian rug; your wife does not wear diamond rings, nor silk
underclothing, nor gowns of brocaded silk, nor sable collars, nor
Maltese lace cuffs worth many guineas. She does not sit in the stalls at
the opera, nor ride home in a brougham, nor sup on oysters and
champagne, nor go, during the heat of the summer, on a yachting cruise
in the Mediterranean. And is not your wife as much to you as the duchess
to the duke?
And now let us go on to the next section, and see how it fares with the
poor.
_Section B: The Poor_
At present the average age at death among the nobility, gentry, and
professional classes in England and Wales is fifty-five years; but among
the artisan classes of Lambeth it only amounts to twenty-nine years; and
whilst the infantile death-rate among the well-to-do classes is such
that only 8 children die in the first year of life out of 100 born, as
many as 30 per cent. succumb at that age among the children of the poor
in some districts of our large cities.
Dr. Playfair says that amongst the upper class 18 per cent. of the
children die before they reach five years of age; of the tradesman class
36 per cent., and of the working class 55 per cent, of the children die
before they reach five years of age.
Out of every 1000 persons 939 die without leaving any property at all
worth mentioning.
About 8,000,000 persons exist always on the borders of starvation. About
20,000,000 are poor. More than half the national wealth belongs to about
25,000 people; the remaining 39,000,000 share the other half unequally
amongst them.
About 30,000 persons own fifty-five fifty-sixths of the land and capital
of the nation; but of the 39,000,000 of other persons only 1,500,000
earn (or receive) as much as L3 a week.
In London 1,292,737 persons, or 37.8 per cent. of the whole population,
get less than a guinea a week _per family_.
The number of persons in receipt of poor-law relief on any one day in
the British Islands is over 1,000,000; but 2,360,000 persons receive
poor-law relief during one year, or one in eleven of the whole manual
labouring class.
In England and Wales alone 72,000 persons die each year in workhouse
hospitals, infirmaries, or asylums.
In London alone there are 99,830 persons in workhorses, hospitals,
prisons, or industrial schools.
In London one person out of every four will die in a workhouse,
hospital, or lunatic asylum.
It is estimated that 3,225,000 persons in the British Islands live in
overcrowded dwellings, with an average of three persons in each room.
There are 30,000 persons in London alone whose _home_ is a common
lodging-house. In London alone 1100 persons sleep every night in casual
wards.
From Fabian Tract No. 75 I quote--
Much has been done in the way of improvement in various parts of
Scotland, but 22 per cent. of Scottish families still dwell in a
single room each, and the proportion in the case of Glasgow rises to
33 per cent. The little town of Kilmarnock, with only 28,447
inhabitants, huddles even a slightly larger proportion of its
families into single-room tenements. Altogether, there are in
Glasgow over 120,000, and in all Scotland 560,000 persons (more than
one-eighth of the whole population), who do not know the decency of
even a two-roomed home.
A similar state of things exists in nearly all our large towns, the
colliery districts being amongst the worst.
_The working class._--The great bulk of the British people are
overworked, underpaid, badly housed, unfairly taxed but besides all
that, they are exposed to serious risks.
Read _The Tragedy of Toil_, by John Burns, M.P. (Clarion Press, 1d.).
In sixty years 60,000 colliers have been accidentally killed. In the
South Wales coalfield in 1896, 232 were killed out of 71,000. In 1897,
out of 76,000 no less than 10,230 were injured.
In 1897, of the men employed in railway shunting, 1 in 203 was killed
and 1 in 12 was injured.
In 1897, out of 465,112 railway workers, 510 were killed, 828 were
permanently disabled, and 67,000 were temporarily disabled.
John Burns says--
This we do know, that 60 per cent. of the common labourers engaged
on the Panama Canal were either killed, injured, or died from
disease every year, whilst 80 per cent. of the Europeans died. Out
of 70 French engineers, 45 died, and only 10 of the remainder were
fit for subsequent work.
The men engaged on the Manchester Ship Canal claim that 1000 to 1100
men were killed and 1700 men were severely injured, whilst 2500 were
temporarily disabled.
Again--
Taking mechanics first, and selecting one firm--Armstrong's, at
Elswick--we find that in 1892 there were 588 accidents, or 7.9 per
cent. of men engaged. They have steadily risen to 1512, or 13.9 per
cent. of men engaged in 1897. In some departments, notably the blast
furnace, 43 per cent. of the men employed were injured in 1897 The
steel works had 296 injured, or 24.4 per cent. of its number.
Of sailors John Burns says--
The last thirteen years, 1884-85 to 1896-97, show a loss of 28,302
from wreck, casualties, and accidents, or an average of 2177 from
the industrial risks of the sailor's life.
But the most startling statement is to come--
Sir A. Forwood has recently indicated, and recent facts confirm
this general view, that
1 of every 1400 workmen is killed annually.
" " 2500 " is totally disabled.
" " 300 " is permanently partially disabled.
125 per 1000 are temporarily disabled for three or four weeks.
One workman in 1400 is killed annually. Let us say there are 6,000,000
workmen in the British Islands, and we shall find that no less than 4280
are killed, and 20,000 permanently or partially disabled.
That is as high as the average year's casualties in the Boer war.
But the high death-rate from accidents amongst the workers is not nearly
the greatest evil to which the poor are exposed.
In the poorest districts of the great towns the children die like flies,
and diseases caused by overcrowding, insufficient or improper food,
exposure, dirt, neglect, and want of fuel and clothing, play havoc with
the infants, the weakly, and the old.
What are the chief diseases almost wholly due to the surroundings of
poverty? They are consumption, bronchitis, rheumatism, epilepsy, fevers,
smallpox, and cancer. Add to those the evil influences with which some
trades are cursed, such as rupture, lead and phosphorous poisoning, and
irritation of the lungs by dust, and you have a whole arsenal of deadly
weapons aimed at the lives of the laborious poor.
The average death-rate amongst the well-to-do classes is less than 10 in
the thousand. Amongst the poorer workers it is often as high as 70 and
seldom as low as 20.
Put the average at 25 in the thousand amongst the poor: put the numbers
of the poor at 10,000,000. We shall find that the difference between the
death-rates of the poor and the well-to-do, is 15 to the thousand or
15,000 to the million.
We may say, then, that the 10,000,000 of poor workers lose every year
150,000 lives from accidents and diseases due to poverty and to labour.
Taking the entire population of the British Islands, I dare assert that
the excess death-rate over the normal death-rate, will show that every
year 300,000 lives are sacrificed to the ignorance and the injustice of
the inhuman chaos which we call British civilisation.
Some have cynically said that these lives are not worth saving, that the
death-rate shows the defeat of the unfit, and that if all survived there
would not be enough for them to live on.
But except in the worst cases--where sots and criminals have bred human
weeds--no man is wise enough to select the "fit" from the "unfit"
amongst the children. The thin, pale child killed by cold, by hunger, by
smallpox, or by fever, may be a seedling Stephenson, or Herschel, or
Wesley; and I take it that in the West End the parents would not be
consoled for the sacrifice of their most delicate child by the brutal
suggestion that it was one of the "unfit." The "fit" may be a hooligan,
a sweater, a fraudulent millionaire, a dissolute peer, or a fool.
But there are two sides to this question of physical fitness. To excuse
the evils of society on the ground that they weed out the unfit, is as
foolish as to excuse bad drainage on the same plea. In a low-lying
district where the soil is marshy the population will be weeded swiftly;
but who would offer that as a reason why the land should not be drained?
This heartless, fatuous talk about the survival of the fittest is only
another example of the insults to which the poor are subjected. It
fills one with despair to think that working men--fathers and
husbands--will read or hear such things said of their own class, and not
resent them. It is the duty of every working man to fight against such
pitiless savagery, and to make every effort to win for his class and his
family, respect and human conditions of life.
Moreover, the shoddy science which talks so glibly about the "weeding
out" of little helpless children is too blear-eyed to perceive that the
same conditions of inhuman life which destroy the "weeds," _breed_ the
weeds. Children born of healthy parents in healthy surroundings are not
weeds. But to-day the British race is deteriorating, and the nation is
in danger because of the greed of money-seekers and the folly of rulers
and of those who claim to teach. The nation that gives itself up to the
worship of luxury, wealth, and ease, is doomed. Nothing can save the
British race but an awakening of the workers to the dangerous pass to
which they have been brought by those who affect to guide and to govern
them.
But the workers, besides being underpaid, over-taxed, badly housed, and
exposed to all manner of hardship, poverty, danger, and anxiety of mind,
are also, by those who live upon them, denied respect.
Do you doubt this? Do not the "better classes," as they call themselves,
allude to the workers as "the lower orders," and "the great unwashed"?
Does not the employer commonly speak of the workers as "hands"? Does the
fine gentleman, who raises his hat and airs his nicest manners for a
"lady," extend his chivalry and politeness to a "woman"? Do not the silk
hats and the black coats and the white collars treat the caps and the
overalls and the smocks as inferiors? Do not the men of the "better
class" address each other as "sir"? And when did you last hear a
"gentleman" say "sir" to a train-guard, to a railway porter, or to the
"man" who has come to mend the drawing-room stove?
Man cannot live by bread alone; neither can woman or child. And how much
honour, culture, pleasure, rest, or love falls to the lot of the wives
and children of the poor?
Do not think I wish to breed class hatred. I do not. Doubtless the
"better class" are graceful, amiable, honourable, and well-meaning
folks. Doubtless they honestly believe they have a just claim to all
their wealth and privileges. Doubtless they are no more selfish, no more
arrogant, no more covetous nor idle than any working man would be in
their place.
What of that? It is nothing at all to you. They may be the finest people
in the world. But does their fineness help you to pay your rent, or your
wife to mend the clothes? or does it give you more wages, or her more
rest? or does it in any way help to educate, and feed, and make happy
your children?
It does not. Nor do all the graces and superiorities of the West End
make the lot of the East less bitter, less anxious, or more human.
If self-interest be the ruling motive of mankind, why do not the working
men transfer their honour and their service from the fine ladies and
fine gentlemen to their own wives and children?
These need every atom of love and respect the men can give them. Why
should the many be poor, be ignorant, despised? Why should the rich
monopolise the knowledge and the culture, the graces and elegancies of
life, as well as the wealth?
Ignorance is a curse: it is a deadlier curse than poverty. Indeed, but
for ignorance, poverty and wealth could not continue to exist side by
side; for only ignorance permits the rich to uphold and the poor to
endure the injustices and the criminal follies of British society, as
now to our shame and grief they environ us, like some loathly vision
beheld with horror under nightmare.
Is it needful to tell you more, Mr. Smith, you who are yourself a
worker? Have you not witnessed, perhaps suffered, many of these evils?
Yes; perhaps you yourself have smarted under "the insolence of office,
and the spurns which patient merit of the unworthy takes"; perhaps you
have borne the tortures of long suspense as one of the unemployed;
perhaps on some weary tramp after work you have learned what it is to be
a stranger in your own land; perhaps you have seen some old veteran
worker, long known to you, now broken in health and stricken in years,
compelled to seek the shameful shelter of a workhouse; perhaps you have
had comrades of your own or other trades, who have been laid low by
sickness, sickness caused by exposure or overstrain, and have died what
coroners' juries call "natural deaths," or, in plain English, have been
killed by overwork; perhaps you have known widows and little children,
left behind by those unfortunate men, and can remember how much succour
and compassion they received in this Christian country; perhaps as you
think of the grim prophecy that one worker in four must die in a
workhouse, you may yourself, despite your strength and your skill,
glance anxiously towards the future, as a bold sailor glances towards a
stormy horizon.
Well, Mr. Smith, will you look through a book of mine called _Dismal
England_, and there read how men and women and children of your class
are treated in the workhouse, in the workhouse school, in the police
court, in the chain works, on the canals, in the chemical hells, and in
the poor and gloomy districts known as slums? I would quote some
passages from _Dismal England_ now, but space forbids.
Or, maybe, you would prefer the evidence of men of wealth and eminence
who are not Socialists. If so, please read the testimony given in the
next section.
_Section C: Reliable Evidence_
The Salvation Army see a great deal of the poor. Here is the evidence of
General Booth--
444 persons are reported by the police to have attempted to commit
suicide in London last year, and probably as many more succeeded in
doing so. 200 persons died from starvation in the same period. We
have in this one city about 100,000 paupers, 30,000 prostitutes,
33,000 homeless adults, and 35,000 wandering children of the slums.
There is a standing army of out-of-works numbering 80,000, which is
often increased in special periods of commercial depression or trade
disputes to 100,000. 12,000 criminals are always inside Her
Majesty's prisons, and about 15,000 are outside. 70,000 charges for
petty offences are dealt with by the London magistrates every year.
The best authorities estimate that 10,000 new criminals are
manufactured per annum. We have tens of thousands of dwellings known
to be overcrowded, unsanitary, or dangerous.
Here is the evidence of a man of letters, Mr. Frederic Harrison--
To me, at least, it would be enough to condemn modern society as
hardly an advance on slavery or serfdom, if the permanent condition
of industry were to be that which we behold, that 90 per cent. of
the actual producers of wealth have no home that they can call their
own beyond the end of the week; have no bit of soil, or so much as a
room that belongs to them; have nothing of value of any kind except
as much old furniture as will go in a cart; have the precarious
chance of weekly wages which barely suffice to keep them in health;
are housed for the most part in places that no man thinks fit for
his horse; are separated by so narrow a margin from destitution,
that a month of bad trade, sickness, or unexpected loss brings them
face to face with hunger and pauperism.... This is the normal state
of the average workman in town or country.
Here is the evidence of a man of science, Professor Huxley--
Anyone who is acquainted with the state of the population of all
great industrial centres, whether in this or other countries, is
aware that amidst a large and increasing body of that population
there reigns supreme ... that condition which the French call _la
misere_, a word for which I do not think there is any exact English
equivalent. It is a condition in which the food, warmth, and
clothing which are necessary for the mere maintenance of the
functions of the body in their normal state cannot be obtained; in
which men, women, and children are forced to crowd into dens wherein
decency is abolished, and the most ordinary conditions of healthful
existence are impossible of attainment; in which the pleasures
within reach are reduced to brutality and drunkenness; in which the
pains accumulate at compound interest in the shape of starvation,
disease, stunted development, and moral degradation; in which the
prospect of even steady and honest industry is a life of
unsuccessful battling with hunger, rounded by a pauper's grave....
When the organisation of society, instead of mitigating this
tendency, tends to continue and intensify it; when a given social
order plainly makes for evil and not for good, men naturally enough
begin to think it high time to try a fresh experiment. I take it to
be a mere plain truth that throughout industrial Europe there is not
a single large manufacturing city which is free from a vast mass of
people whose condition is exactly that described, and from a still
greater mass who, living just on the edge of the social swamp, are
liable to be precipitated into it.
Here is the evidence of a British peer, Lord Durham--
There was still more sympathy and no reproach whatever to be
bestowed upon the children--perhaps waifs and strays in their
earliest days--of parents destitute, very likely deserving, possibly
criminal, who had had to leave these poor children to fight their
way in life alone. What did these children know or care for the
civilisation or the wealth of their native land? _What example, what
incentive had they ever had to lead good and honest lives?_ Possibly
from the moment of their birth they had never known contentment,
what it had been to feel bodily comfort. They were cast into that
world, and looked upon it as a cruel and heartless world, with no
guidance, no benign influence to guide them in their way, and _thus
they were naturally prone to fall into any vicious or criminal
habits which would procure them a bare subsistence_.
Here is the evidence of a Tory Minister, Sir John Gorst--
I do not think there is any doubt as to the reality of the evil;
that is to say, that there are in our civilisation men able and
willing to work who can't find work to do.... Work will have to be
found for them.... What are usually called relief works may be a
palliative for acute temporary distress, but they are no remedy for
the unemployed evil in the long-run. Not only so; they tend to
aggravate it.... If you can set 100 unemployed men to produce food,
they are not taking bread out of other people's mouths. Men so
employed would be producing what is now imported from abroad and
what they themselves would consume. An unemployed man--_whether he
is a duke or a docker_--is living on the community. If you set him
to grow food he is enriching the community by what he produces.
Therefore, my idea is that the direction in which a remedy for the
unemployed evil is to be sought is in the production of food.
Here is the evidence of the Tory Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury--
They looked around them and saw a _growing_ mass of _poverty_ and
_want of employment_, and of course the one object which every
statesman who loved his country should desire to attain, was that
there might be the largest amount of profitable employment for the
mass of the people.
He did not say that he had any patent or certain remedy for _the
terrible evils which beset us on all sides_, but he did say that it
was time they left off mending the constitution of Parliament, and
that they turned all the wisdom and energy Parliament could combine
together in order to remedy the _sufferings_ under which so _many_
of their countrymen laboured.
Here is the evidence of the Colonial Secretary, the Right Hon. Joseph
Chamberlain, M.P.--
The rights of property have been so much extended that the rights of
the community have almost altogether disappeared, and it is hardly
too much to say that the prosperity and the comfort and the
liberties of a great proportion of the population have been laid at
the feet of a small number of proprietors, who "neither toil nor
spin."
And here is further evidence from Mr. Chamberlain--
For my part neither sneers, nor abuse, nor opposition shall induce
me to accept as the will of the Almighty, and the unalterable
dispensation of His providence, a state of things under which
_millions lead sordid, hopeless, and monotonous lives, without
pleasure in the present, and without prospect for the future_.
And here is still stronger testimony from Mr. Chamberlain--
The ordinary conditions of life among a large proportion of the
population are such that common decency is absolutely impossible;
and all this goes on in sight of the mansions of the rich, where
undoubtedly there are people who would gladly remedy it if they
could. It goes on in presence of wasteful extravagance and luxury,
which bring but little pleasure to those who indulge in them; and
private charity is powerless, religious organisations can do
nothing, to remedy the evils which are so deep-seated in our social
system.
You have read what these eminent men have said, Mr. Smith, as to the
evils of the present time.
Well, Mr. Atkinson, a well-known American statistical authority, has
said--
Four or five men can produce the bread for a thousand. With the best
machinery one workman can produce cotton cloth for 250 people,
woollens for 300, or boots and shoes for 1000.
How is it, friend John Smith, that with all our energy, all our
industry, all our genius, and all our machinery, there are 8,000,000 of
hungry poor in this country?
If five men can produce bread for a thousand, and one man can produce
shoes for a thousand, how is it we have so many British citizens
suffering from hunger and bare feet?
That, Mr. Smith, is the question I shall endeavour in this book to
answer.
Meanwhile, if you have any doubts as to the verity of my statements of
the sufferings of the poor, or as to the urgent need for your immediate
and earnest aid, read the following books, and form your own opinion:--
_Labour and Life of the People._ Charles Booth. To be seen at most
free libraries.
_Poverty: A Study of Town Life._ By B. S. Rountree. Macmillan. 10s.
6d.
_Dismal England._ By R. Blatchford, 72 Fleet Street, E.C. 2s. 6d.
and 1s.
_No Room to Live._ By G. Haw, 72 Fleet Street, E.C. 1s.
_The White Slaves of England._ By R. Sherard. London, James Bowden.
1s.
_Pictures and Problems from the Police Courts._ By T. Holmes. Ed.
Arnold, Bedford Street, W.C.
And the Fabian Tracts, especially No. 5 and No. 7. These are 1d. each.